Hi Ross, Thank you for taking a look at this. Most of your questions and the details are unfortunately beyond reach of my skills, but I'll do my best to address the little i know about it bellow:
On 2016-10-01 14:01, Ross Gammon wrote: > Hi All, > > I sat down this morning to review where we are with implementing the new > theme. It was a little tricky to follow what was done where, and why. It > would be more helpful to reviewers and potential sponsors if we > submitted a bug on launchpad, then carried out discussions there, and > created a task for the required actions on each package so we can track > when they are all complete. For example, we have the theme uploaded in > ubuntustudio-look, but we haven't changed the default settings in > ubuntustudio-default-setttings yet. > > So where are we we with each package? > > ubuntustudio-look: > > Kaj uploaded Version 0.54 to yakkety, and this appears to now depend on > numix-gtk-theme, and numix-blue-gtk-theme. Numix-blue-gtk-theme is a new > binary package (of ubuntustudio-look) and contains the bundled source of > the upstream tarball. It would have been better to create a separate > source package for this, but I suppose doing it this way avoided the > need to get sponsorship outside of the team. And a note for Set for next > time - the commit bundling numix-blue included a lot of other changes > that probably should have been committed separately to bzr. But no harm > done. We should probably: > > 1. Submit bug to remind ourselves to see of we can drop some theme > packages now to save space (or has this already been done?). I don't know. But i guess if there are unnecessary packages that haven't been drop, it would be a good idea to do it. > > 2. Submit a bug to remind ourselves to explain the inclusion of the > numix-blue source in a debian/README.source file at the next upload. There were three options identified: 1.) Package NumixBlue properly in Debian, 2.) Package it separately in Ubuntu, and 3.) Add it temporarily to -look until we can do the first. We chose the only sensible option there in terms of timing. > > ubuntustudio-default-settings: > > This has not been uploaded yet (currently version 0.62 in Yakkety), but > Krytarik has prepared the required changes to make numix blue the > default, which without a full check look fine. Unfortunately, there is > also a commit to move the lightdm configuration to > ubuntu-default-settings from the separate source package > (ubuntustudio-lightdm-theme). This is probably the right thing to do, > because the us-lightdm-theme package is practically empty now (except > for this one configuration file). But the timing is unfortunate (so > close to release), and the changelog entry could have been a bit more > verbose, explaining that we are moving the config file from one source > package to another (in preparation for dropping the lightdm package one > day). > > 1. We should also have a launchpad bug for this change, so we can track > the eventual removal of the lightdm package (and mention it in the > changelog). Good point. I would love to file it so i can unload work-burden for you, but the level of my confusion in this issue is.. palpable to say the least. > > 2. We have updated debian/control to also provide the us-lightdm-theme > package. I don't think creating a virtual package is appropriate here. > It is probably sufficient to just have breaks/replaces so that > us-lightdm-theme is removed on upgrade. I hope Krytarik wants to step in here because i know neither what are the pros nor what are the cons of "virtual package" and "breaks/replaces" :/ > > 3. We also seem to have added a dependency on xubuntu-icon-theme, which > is not explained in the changelog. Do we know why this is required? xubuntu-icon-theme was a depend of -lightdm-theme, hence they were moved over with it. > > ubuntustudio-lightdm-theme (currently version 0.9 9n yakkety & xenial): > > As I said above, us-lightdm is practically empty, except for this one > config file that we should move to default-settings. However, I notice > at the last upload we changed to a tidier way of using a maintainer > script to remove the old config file (which was renamed at this > version). I am not 100% sure, but by setting the lastversion that the > config file existed to 0.9, the config file may not be removed in an > upgrade to Xenial. It probably should have said 0.8. This maintainer > script should probably also be moved to the default-settings package in > the merge above, so that us-lightdm-theme can be removed eventually. > This theory needs some testing. This is very hard for me to assimilate, but what i know is that ubuntustudio-lightdm-theme 0.9 was already released in Xenial > > Summary: > > Krytarik has done a good job here (as things certainly were a little > messy before), but at this stage I think we should revert the commit > that moves the config to default-settings, and just upload the changes > to make numix blue the default. Then we should implement the config move > early in the next release cycle to get maximum upgrade testing from > previous releases. > > If there are no mistakes/comments in this analysis (and I could do with > an answer on the xubuntu-icon-theme question above), I will probably > start on this later today/tomorrow. I wish i could be a better judge of what to do, but due to my poor technical understanding i have to leave this up to you and Krytarik. I can imagine that Krytarik is going to be reluctant to redo the changes later, because, well... double work, but i also think he should join this conversation to clarify why it would be unnecessary to revert now so you both can be on the same page regarding what is done and why. I truly hope i'm not making things more complicated with my interaction and that we will be able to find a good solution in time. Yours, -- Set Hallstrom aka sakrecoer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
